From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12433 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2002 20:07:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12425 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 20:07:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 20:07:06 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18P8p6-0001zf-01 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:07:20 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18P36X-0007Tg-00 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:00:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit Message-ID: <20021219160057.GA28605@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:47:49PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > My testbed gives me 34 KFAIL's on 34 configurations, just fine. > This is native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+. > > I use stock FSF dejagnu 1.4.3. I also built dejagnu from the > sourcware cvs "dejagnu" module and did a test run with that. > That works fine too. > > I have appended a gdb.sum file for anyone who is curious. > The KFAIL line looks like this: > > KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544) > > We can't do anything about the "PRMS:" part, that comes from dejagnu. > > I have an objection to the name "c++/544". It is way too easy for > this name to get quoted out of context (the context being that it is > a gdb bug in the gdb database). I think this will cause confusion. > I would like to see "gdb/544" here. > > Sure, right *now* while we are discussing the issue, everyone knows > that "c++/544" means a gdb bug in the gdb PR database. Wait six weeks > and then quote some people a gdb.sum report that says "c++/482" in it > and see if anyone jumps to the incorrect conclusion that c++/482 means > a bug in the C++ compiler. I want the C++ part in there. How about "PRMS: [gdb] c++/544"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer